Morality as a Set of Beliefs and Values - Essay Example

15 February Study Guide From the Elements of Moral Philosophy by Rachel know what is Morality, the Utilitarian approach, are there absolute Moral rules The Ethics of Virtue: Understand key concepts and be able to assign particular concepts to particular theorist-i.e. the categorical imperative to Kant. You may see a phrase such as: name the father of absolute sovereignty and explain the theory. Morality: Morality is a set of beliefs and values through which actions can be measured and evaluated as "right" or "wrong". People have been working and debating for centuries to define the terms morals and morality; however a universal definition continues to elude humankind. Additionally, the origin of morals and moral behavior is relatively unknown; as is what components a person must consider when deciding whether his or her actions would be considered moral. Unlike many consequentialists, Kant asserts deontological, or "Duty Based" morals. Essentially, morals come directly from the will of the person taking action; that person will do the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do. This approach to ethics is the easiest to teach, the first people learn, and the most cut-and-dry approach to ethics and moral influence available. The Kantian approach to morality relies heavily on universal acceptance and implementation of "laws" such as whether or not a person should lie, steal, or murder. Clearly, to lie, steal, or murder is wrong; therefore a moral person will never lie, will never steal, and will never murder another person. The idea of "Universal Acceptance and Application of Laws" is known as the Categorical Imperative. Kant describes this Categorical Imperative as a personal choice: act in a manner that you would like to see become a universal law. This is somewhat akin to the "Golden Rule" - in a sense. In essence, this ideal asserts that while a person is deciding whether or not to do something (such as lie) to first consider whether or not that action should be done to him. To work with the example of lying: if a person does not believe that lying should be a universally accepted practice, then that person - through logic and reasoning - should not lie under any circumstances. Deontological ethics are rarely concerned with the outcome of an action - only the action itself is measured in terms of moral evaluation. Therefore, the Kantian approach to ethics is largely impartial and more objective than other views of moral behavior. As stated by Kant, there are no exceptions within this approach to ethics and morals. If it is wrong to lie, then at no time should a person lie. No matter the outcome of a situation, deontological ethics define a person as morally right if that person did not lie. For example, people seeking employment often have to write up resumes and/or fill out job applications. Some jobs require a certain amount of experience or training within the profession - or possible a particular personality - to consider an interviewee for employment. While filling out the application, duty-based ethics would require that a person be forthright with his or her information and personality traits - even if doing so may cost him or her employment. If the result of being honest results in the loss or foreclosure of the home, the act of being honest about his or her experiences on the job application is still measured as morally correct. The Kantian approach to ethics and morals is not without its flaws; some concepts simply cannot be categorized as "universal" and other should not. For example, if one persons morals infringes upon the rights or morals of another person. The use of contraceptives can be used as an example of this. If people were to universally stop the use of contraceptives, the world would become much more populated than it already is. Teen pregnancy would being to increase, and subsequently the number of abortions and adoptions would increase proportionally. However, if everyone universally began using contraceptives, procreation would cease and the world's population would sharply decline. Clearly, there can be no universal acceptance regarding the use of contraceptives itself. Utilitarian Approach: The Utilitarian approach to ethics is one in which a person will evaluate and measure the morality of an action based on how many people will benefit from the action. Generally, people who approach utilitarian ethics will try to create the most perfect society possible because the actions they believe to be moral will benefit society as a whole rather than merely a small portion of society. In contrast to Kant's view of universal acceptance of laws and duty-based ethics, utilitarianism asserts that people should do whatever will promote the most benefit for the largest number of people. In a way, utilitarians are idealists and tend to hold onto a collective view of the world around them. Just as in Deontological ethics, utilitarian ethics has its advantages and disadvantages. For example, if people behaved and acted in a way that promoted happiness within a community and benefited society in general, then quite possibly more criminals would be caught, and areas such as education would not be as lax or as sporadic in areas of the United States as it is now. However, to accept a solely utilitarian approach to ethics and morality would require that individual rights and personal freedoms will be taken away. There are times when people should, and do, forego certain rights in the interest of preserving community benefit. For example, the laws regarding the usage of seatbelts was brought about with a utilitarian point of view that seatbelts will help to save a vast majority of people who become involved in automobile accidents. However, the individual freedoms that are given to people include the freedom, or the right, to ride in a car without wearing a seatbelt. Therefore, by passing the utilitarian law requiring all people riding in an automobile must wear a seatbelt, the individual right to ride without a seatbelt has been taken away. However, because this law saves so many lives and benefits the majority of society, the seat belt law is considered to be an ethical choice despite its appearance to infringe on individual rights. While deontological ethics is categorized as "Duty-Based" ethics, utilitarian ethics are categorized as "Goal-Based" ethics. Goal based ethics are those ethics which can be measured and evaluated by the outcome, or consequence, of the action in question. For example, the text refers to Truman's use of the atomic bomb to end World War Two. Through Kant's duty-based logic, Truman's use of the bomb was unethical: it's wrong to kill innocent people even in a time of war no exceptions. Therefore, since the action itself is not one that people would will to be universal, the use of the bomb was unethical. However, when looking at the same example from the perspective of a utilitarian, the action was, indeed, an ethical action. Using the Atomic bomb ended a war that had already killed millions, and was going to continue to kill millions. In addition to finally ending the war, its use thrust the United States firmly into the realm of a "Super Power": securing the young nation's position once and for all. Many more lives were saved than lost, and the United States economy flourished; additionally, people in Germany and Japan were afforded help from the world's newest "Super Power." Clearly, the benefit to humankind that resulted from Truman's use of the atomic bomb outweighed the harm the action caused and the loss of life that resulted. Are there absolute morals: Because ethics and morals are both subjective terms - meaning that their definitions and perceived meanings will vary from person to person - absolute morals cannot exist. Even the Kantian approach to ethics, which relies heavily on universal acceptance of rules and the Categorical Imperative, leaves room for interpretation. The concept of absolute morals implies that the rules of ethical behavior must be followed under all circumstances. However, people can often interpret the rules differently. For example, when learning about human rights, several people interpret "Human Rights" to entail those people who are already living, contributing members of society. Others will attribute "Human Rights" to unborn children or potential lives that are not yet contributing members of society. Because of these varying perceptions, issues such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research conflict. Inevitably, an instance of abortion will violate the rights of an unborn child; however, banning an abortion will violate the rights of a living, contributing woman in society. As long as people continue to interpret the "rules" of Human Rights differently, the issues of abortion and stem cell research will never be unequivocally answered and no absolute answer can be reached. In addition to interpretation, some absolute morals may conflict with each other. Two such morals that sometimes conflict are those that define telling the truth to a group of people and doing what's best for a company. For example, a manager of a large corporation must serve the interests of both the organization she serves and the employees who work under her. If she is told that she must lay-off several of her employees, she has a choice to make: she can give her employees notice of the impending lay-offs and allow them time to find another job. In doing so, this manager will be telling the truth to her employees, and serving their interests by giving them proper notice. However, once this truth is released, many employees may begin revolting: calling in sick to work rather than attend their last days of work. A panic may start resulting in several other employees quitting before the lay-offs can occur. Some employees may even become disgruntled and stop to stealing or damaging company property. By telling the employees, the manager will violate her work ethic to serve the interests of the corporation, which could suffer substantial losses. The idea of absolute morals are often taught and easily learned. For example, American society often teaches children that lying is "wrong." Children learn that lying is absolutely wrong and are taught to never lie under any circumstance. Absolute morals are the easiest to teach verbally because humans cannot list an example of how to act to every situation that might come up. However, by the time a child has grown up, that child will have learned that the absolute morals he or she followed at a younger age may no longer apply. A doctor who suspects child abuse might lie to the parents of the child for fear that the parents will take the child out of the doctor's care before social services can come and evaluate the situation. Because parents cannot foresee that circumstance happening with their child, it is easier to say "don't ever lie, lying is wrong." Finally, absolute morals cannot remain coherent because people derive their morals, personal values, and codes of ethical behavior from varying places. Some such morals are developed through a person's experiences. Because no one goes through life with the exact same experiences, no set of morals can be considered absolute. Some people derive their morals from religious texts and beliefs. Once again, however, these sources vary from one person to another. Additionally, because people experience different things throughout their lives, people who derive their moral values from the same source may interpret them differently. Ethics of Virtue: The ethics of virtue theory refers to those actions done by a good person. For example, if a good person will never lie, then any person who wants to be categorized as a good person will never lie. First, society must define what a good, or virtuous, person is. Aristotle defined a virtuous person as having particular habits, or virtues, that define that person's character. This theory entails four requirements: 1) to define what a virtue is, 2) to list which characteristics can be described as virtues, 3) to explain what these virtues entail, and 4) to explain why these virtues are important to society. Additional steps may include detailing whether these virtues can be applied universally or whether they will vary from culture to culture. Aristotle was among the first thinkers to define what a virtue is: "a trait of character manifested in habitual action." Essentially, a virtue is a character-defining trait that is performed naturally out of habit rather than forced behavior. The term "habitual" is vital to defining virtues because these actions are done out of compulsive need rather than out of forced thought. For example, a habitually honest person tells the truth out of impulse, without forethought. However, a vice is defined as the having the same trait: a habitual practice that defines a person's character. According to Pincoff, a person can use the "seek out or avoid" method to decide between which habitual traits can be considered virtues and which should be considered vices. "Virtues" would be those traits that a person might seek out to accompany; whereas "vices" would be those traits a person would normally try to avoid in another person. The second portion, listing character traits that could be described as virtues, is an immense step. No short answer exists to this question; however several philosophers in the past have contemplated such a list and compiled several character-defining traits that people would seek out in another person. This list includes, but is not limited to, such traits as: compassion, generosity, dependability, courage, patience, loyalty, honesty, and many more. The third step is to detail what each characteristic consists in. This step is easier said than done because each characteristic entails its own advantages and disadvantages, and each presents its own list of problems. As a general rule of thumb, these characteristics lie between two extreme vices. For example, the characteristic "courage" lies between the two vices "cowardly" and "foolhardy." Cowardly and foolhardy both lie at opposite extremes of behavior: cowardly would be to run away from or avoid all risks and dangers while foolhardy would mean a person runs into the face of danger without thinking of the risks. Courage lies between these two vices, implying that a person would choose which dangers or risks are acceptable to face and avoiding others. Each character-defining trait or virtue presents a similar scale of balance between two extreme vices. Determining the importance of these virtues is the fourth and final component in the Virtue of Ethics theory implies defining detailed and exact reasons of why these characteristics are desirable. To list each virtue and define exactly why each is important and desirable would take too long. However, a person could accomplish this by reviewing a more complete list of virtues and answering the same question for each: "Why is it a good thing for a person to be honest" The answer would be that honest communications are required for a society to thrive. To lie or use other deceptive measures would result in the decline of any society. Therefore, because honesty falls between two extreme vices (telling the truth no matter what and lying compulsively) and can be defined as an important and desirable trait, honesty can be listed as a virtue. Marcus Aurelius and Stoicism: Marcus Aurelius's book "Meditations" is often categorized or listed as a book on "philosophy." In his translation, Maxwell Staniforth includes a preamble to Aurelius's "Meditations" by clarifying that the book is not merely a philosophy book. Rather, "Meditations" is written as a journal: thoughts and musing of Aurelius as they appeared to him through experiences, questions, and other events. As such, Staniforth forewarns his readers that "Meditations" does not follow a comprehensible order or theme. Aurelius's thoughts appear in the exact order that he experienced and recorded them. Because of this journal-like set up, the book jumps quickly from one subject to another: one moment Aurelius appears to be musing about the mysteries of life and death and the next moment he appears to be contemplating an aphorism for self-improvement. To better understand the flow of Aurelius's "Meditations," the reader must first understand the time and setting in which Aurelius kept his journal. The concept of philosophy held a very different meaning in ancient times from what society knows of the subject today. For example, during the time Aurelius wrote his journal, the virtues of humankind was considered to be consistent with the domain of religion rather than that of philosophers. In contrast, morals and ethical behaviors were defined and studied by philosopher. This is evident by the lack of concern over moral obligations and ethical behaviors within religious establishments during the early Roman Imperial age. With the advent of Christianity, moral behavior eventually became more integrated into religious teachings. Clergymen within Christianity helped to define virtuous behaviors and describe ethics that were much more related to humankind's relationship with God then in previous times. Rather than define or discuss moral behaviors, religious clergymen during ancient times busied themselves with religious rites in an attempt to win the Gods' protection or avoid the Gods' wrath. The moral behavior of humankind was left to the philosophers. Essentially, while priests worked to win favor from the Gods for their community, philosophers worked to define the role that humankind was to play in the role. Some of today's best known and most respected philosophers hail from these ancient times: Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates, for example. However, even these well-learned and respected philosophers differed in their definitions of ethics and moral obligations. One claim that each had in common, however, was that the definitions of moral behavior, theology, and ethics belonged in the hands of philosophers, not priests. The advent and spread of Christianity ultimately led to the decline of the role of philosophers to society as morals and ethical behavior began to be defined through religious texts and priests. Because much of today's ethical behaviors and moral obligations are integrated into today's varying religions, much of what a contemporary reader might see within Aurelius's "Meditations" are areas that are currently covered by religion rather than philosophy. Therefore, while the category of "philosophy" is suitable for Aurelius's work, this categorization is slightly misleading by today's definitions. Marcus Aurelius was also a strong believer in the system of philosophy defined as Stoicism. Stoicism originated more than three centuries before the time of Christ. Zeno, the founder of stoicism, concluded that everything fell under the terms materialism - that everything in the universe held some type of bodily substance; monism - that everything could, ultimately, fall within a single, universal principle; and mutation - that everything remains in a perpetual state of change and development. While Zeno's original design of this philosophical methodology was rigid and uncompromising, his successors were able to adjust this philosophy to be more acceptable by other thinkers and philosophers. By the time Marcus Aurelius assumed the throne as emperor of Rome, Stoicism was well ingrained into the men and women of his community and widely accepted throughout the empire. Stoics defined philosophy as "striving after wisdom." Staniforth further explains that "wisdom" included knowledge of all things, both divine and human. Therefore, Stoicism attempts to reach an understanding of everything either human or divine in nature. To accomplish this, knowledge was divided into three separate areas: physics, logic, and ethics. Logic entails forethought and critical thinking on a given situation prior to passing judgment or taking action. Physics entails the chemical make-up of all things in the world as accompanied by an Omni-present Being; the assumption that the Divine are actually part of everything physical in this world. The idea that God, or other higher being, is present within all things, created everything, and holds no separate existence outside of these things makes Stoicism a Pantheistic belief system. Ethics entails that humankind should strive to live with nature because by living in accordance with what is natural, humankind can achieve its chief end: happiness. The Stoic approach to "ethics" can be hard for contemporary readers to understand. Many people today will read the idea of "living with nature" and presume that this entails leading a simple life in nature. In actuality, the Stoic approach to ethics presumes that people should follow a natural course as defined through physics and logic. Essentially, people should not work against the divine plan set in motion. A Man For All Seasons (part one): Throughout the play, "A Man For All Seasons," the audience is offered a look into the hard and extraordinary life of Sir Thomas Moore, Lord Chancellor to King Henry VIII of England. If a hero is defined as expressing strength in the face of battle, then Sir Thomas Moore surely would be classified as a hero for his strength shown during his spiritual and societal battle that took place within King Henry VIII's court. Throughout the play, More's refusal to speak his mind against Rich and those philosophies with which he disagreed continued to work against him. As the play continues, the audience watches as More slowly loses everything, from material possessions to the trust of his friends, his job, and eventually his life. Many speculate that if More had spoken his mind, Rich's eventual downfall and his own beheading might have been avoided. In truth, More's silence signifies several things. First, while More loved and adored Rich, he distrusted Rich and disapproved of Rich's descent into Machiavellian beliefs. To speak out against Rich was to risk being accused of treason and as a result risked death. Therefore, More preserved his own life by refusing to speak out against Rich or Rich's friends. By holding his tongue and withholding his beliefs from Rich, More displayed distrust that Rich would accept or approve of his beliefs. However, More also displays a desire that Rich might, eventually, learn the truth on his own and find a path back to righteousness. Additionally, although More disapproved of Rich's actions and desires and the loss of Rich's innocence, his silence signifies a slight loyalty to Rich. Perhaps it was because of his long-standing friendship before Machiavellian influence began to take its hold on Rich or a secret desire to see Rich reclaim his innocence. Some might find More's silence to signify fear or cowardice. However, given the time and the constructs of Rich's politics, remaining silent while in the face of impending disaster proved More's strength. For during this time, More was able to stand on his own beliefs and principles without betraying his own principles or betraying Rich. His silence continued, however, when More was asked to sign an oath giving the Monarchy rule over the Church. More had a responsibility to God and to the Church; and his own principles did not leave room to serve Rich. Therefore, More remained beholden only to God and the Church and refused to sign the oath. Once again, many people might view More's silence as a sign of cowardice or even stupidity. Speaking up and signing the oath, as was requested by Rich, would have exonerated More and allowed him to go free. However, to sign an oath that he deeply abhorred would have been seen as a betrayal to God, to the church, and ultimately to his own principles and views of his self-worth. His silence signified a deeply rooted strength that a man must stand up for his principles. Throughout the play, "A Man For All Seasons," More is portrayed as a genuine and silent person with purpose. His loyalty and love of Rich was surpassed only by his faith and love of God. Although he refused to openly speak out against what he viewed as evil and unethical behaviors, he also refused to speak out and support such behaviors. A Man for All Seasons (part two): The story of King Henry VIII and his court is a commonly known story taught to students around the world. The most famous part of the story, of course, is King Henry VIII, portrayed as Rich in the play, and his many love affairs, lust for wealth and power, and the squandering behavior that ultimately led to his downfall. Thomas Moore was a mentor and beloved friend of the young King Henry VIII, and as such Moore enjoyed the life of a teacher and educator, a faithful servant to the Catholic Church, and an idealist. Moore was able to instill a humanist approach to all things within King Henry and because of this he believed the King to be a good and righteous king - to be loved and adored by the people of England. However, prior to King Henry VIII's ascension to the throne, Machiavelli had published his "Prince" - often referred to as a handbook for dictators. King Henry VIII was very well educated and was often known to contemplate over political theories and other worldly affairs. He frequently enjoyed reading new materials, and his zest for life often led to compulsory actions that were easily swayed to suit his own interests. Wolsey and Cromwell both understood this wavering tendency within King Henry VIII and often used it to their advantage. Throughout King Henry VIII's first marriage to Catherine of Aragon, everything was peaceful; the couple was happy with each other and together reigned as an adored monarchy over England. Although King Henry VIII had many affairs, he rarely placed much passion or heart into them. As time went on, the relationship became strained as Catherine grew more religious and, consequently, spent less time pleasing her king. Additionally, the alliance with Spain was seen as unfavorable, whereas this alliance was viewed as necessary when Henry first married Catherine. However, these symptoms alone did not directly result in the famous divorce between Catherine and Henry. Rather, Henry became convinced that his marriage to Catherine was an unholy and illegal marriage because of her previous marriage to his brother. According to ecclesiastical law, a man cannot take his brother's wife, or the resulting union would remain childless. Although Henry and Catherine did have a daughter, Mary, Henry did not consider Mary to be a worthy child; to continue his dynasty he needed a son to pass on his sovereignty. The absence of a son helped to solidify King Henry VIII's belief that his marriage to Catherine was a cursed marriage and to clear his conscience the marriage had to be annulled. Coupled with this sudden onset of guilt over leading a sinful life, King Henry VIII fell in love with the infamous Anne Boleyn. He immediately set into motion a plan to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon and marry Anne Boleyn to once again try to preserve his dynasty and produce a son. To accomplish this, he turned first to Wolsey, a trusted advisor and long-time friend. While Cardinal Wolsey held some influence over other clergymen, he could not sway Pope Clemente to satisfy the king's request for a divorce. Wolsey's failure to achieve a divorce for the king ultimately opened the doors for others, such as Cromwell, to step in and begin influencing the king's view regarding the church and the law. Ultimately, Cromwell was able to convince King Henry VIII that the king, and his monarchy, was to be the head of the church and all religious affairs within their kingdom. Because this radical view suited King Henry VIII's desire to separate from Catherine and take a new bride, he was easily influenced to supporting the reform and restructuring the church of England; to which he was to be placed as the head rather than the Pope. Thomas Moore opposed this reformation. Moore had already fought diligently to put an end to the calls for reformation within the church launched previously by Martin Luther and viewed the king's sudden change in behavior as a betrayal against not only Moore himself but also against God and the church. Queen Catherine is rightfully portrayed as a righteous victim in that she held tremendous strength through all of King Henry VIII's mistreatment of her. While he had his affairs, she remained loyal and worked only to serve him. Even after thoughts of divorce began to whisper through the king's mind, she remained loyal and displayed dignity throughout the proceedings. Anne Boleyn, most famous in history for her beheading, was a bright young woman. She realized all too well that the king took very little heart in his affairs, and thus refused to have an affair with him. She was also ambitious; accepting no less than to become the next Queen of England. In the play, "The Common Man" plays the vital role of drawing the audience into the play as someone to whom they can easily relate to. Although the "Common Man" was misinterpreted to mean a commoner, or a person on the street, Bolt had originally intended the "Common Man" to be that person who holds so much in common with the rest of society. The Common Man was the person who spoke directly to the audience, from within the play as a character, helping to draw the audience's attention into the play from an insider's point of view rather than from the view of a spectator. Read More